Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Creation is my assumption because of my beliefs. If you chose you can transpose the word nature. Your break down is pretty accurate.
1. Complex design strongly suggests a designer. The more complexed the design; the more likely a designer is involved. If Darwin truely understood what it would take to produce even the most simple life form in the observable world he might had turfed his theory before it caught on.
|
You're not paying attention. These are not truths like 2 + 2 = 4. This is a statement, which maybe you believe to be true, but has not been proven. There is no truth or logic in it. There is nothing (besides Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort) that states a designer is necessary, nor that the more 'complex' a system is, the more likely a designer exists or is necessary for the system. Furthermore this statement is exactly like the other one I challenged. You haven't broken anything down or presented a truth with which to base your position. Lastly, the drivel you wrote after it is mere hyperbole and opinion. You challenge Darwin about not knowing what it takes to produce life yet I doubt you have even a tenth of the understanding he did. Even if you are indeed better informed than he I would imagine even you would say you don't know what it takes to create simple life. (Besides a 'designer') Either way it doesn't matter because none of that is a logical argument based in any facts, it's just the same old hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
2. Creation(nature) is complexed. Pakistani scientists are taking apart that downed american airial drone and more than likely going to be able to understand the technology and, also reproduce it. This is not true for life even though it is studied with earnest.
|
You may not believe (read: understand) that people have an understanding of life and nature but there are building blocks with which our increasing scientific knowledge is based. Furthermore, I don't recall anyone saying it was all explained or even close to explained (besides those with religious dogmatic belief, strange ironic twist). The base of knowledge is always expanding, always asking new questions, and in rare circumstances even being altered. Yet it is based on truth, fact, and things that can be observed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Variation within genetic codes are not equal to increasing complexity. Seeing the one doesn't mean you have observed the other. Genetic code itself is problematic for evolution theory. There is no reason they would appear out of the theoretical chemical soup. How do you even go from chemical compounds to an amazing organic computer chip. Time alone would never produce an airial drone by itself. Yet it is believed that time produced all the genetic blueprints that make up life today.
|
I guess I would have to yield to your superior biological knowledge probably based on multiple biology and chemistry degrees with focus on genetics. What is it you do again? Besides perpetuate 5000 year old fairy tales?
(I assume) the basis for most of your knowledge comes from books masquerading as science that are marketed and sold to people of belief. Whether it is or it isn't, this last part is more opinion masked as fact. If you want me to give it any credence your going to have to come up with some pretty convincing arguments in your favor from accredited sources.
For starters variations, if new, is increasing complexity in the code. Genes mutate all the time. The ones that are beneficial get kept due to natural selection. So through mutation and selection, YES the code does get more complex. New genes are in fact created. And they go on to become part of the system and even mutate from there. Most are not kept, but some, again through natural selection, become part of the code.
That's all I got for now, because you still didn't answer my first question. Can you in anyway prove that your sentence, '
Creation because of its complexed design strongly suggests a designer' is anything more than opinion?
P.S. since you've used it twice already, 'complexed' isn't a word, complex works fine in the ways you are trying to use it.
